Harasiewicz 1955

Performance		0-Rank	0-Score	1-Rank	1-Score	2-Rank	2-Score	3-Rank	3-Score	3R-Rank	3R-Score	4-Rank	4-Score	NED
Afanassiev 2001		44	0.39	60	0.00	29	0.08	26	0.32	20	0.49	28	0.40
Anderszewski 2003		54	0.37	69	0.00	38	0.06	33	0.24	9	0.59	29	0.38
Ashkenazy 1981		32	0.41	34	0.00	47	0.06	48	0.06	69	0.06	68	0.06
Bacha 2000		72	0.29	28	0.00	42	0.06	44	0.11	26	0.36	42	0.20
Badura 1965		76	0.24	44	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	79	0.03	86	0.03
Barbosa 1983		27	0.42	21	0.00	31	0.07	40	0.15	24	0.40	40	0.24
Biret 1990		63	0.32	89	0.00	56	0.05	64	0.05	15	0.59	44	0.17
Blet 2003		9	0.48	36	0.00	24	0.09	20	0.43	11	0.64	16	0.52
Block 1995		1	0.60	1	0.21	1	0.20	1	0.77	2	0.79	1	0.78
Blumental 1952		67	0.31	61	0.00	69	0.06	51	0.06	36	0.21	56	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		23	0.44	40	0.00	11	0.11	10	0.55	12	0.59	13	0.57
Brailowsky 1960		53	0.37	70	0.00	41	0.07	38	0.18	10	0.61	31	0.33
Bunin 1987		79	0.22	85	0.00	81	0.03	81	0.03	61	0.05	81	0.04
Bunin 1987b		78	0.22	62	0.00	82	0.04	76	0.04	56	0.06	72	0.05
Chiu 1999		4	0.53	11	0.01	32	0.07	43	0.14	47	0.10	55	0.12
Cohen 1997		49	0.38	14	0.01	33	0.06	37	0.19	24	0.46	33	0.30
Cortot 1951		60	0.36	35	0.00	54	0.04	70	0.04	26	0.43	53	0.13
Csalog 1996		40	0.40	37	0.00	66	0.07	45	0.07	28	0.34	45	0.15
Czerny 1949		68	0.30	65	0.00	34	0.05	35	0.21	18	0.69	30	0.38
Czerny 1990		74	0.28	66	0.00	68	0.06	54	0.06	55	0.07	70	0.06
Duchoud 2007		65	0.31	86	0.00	67	0.06	49	0.06	54	0.06	67	0.06
Ezaki 2006		71	0.30	82	0.00	70	0.05	62	0.05	43	0.18	58	0.09
Falvay 1989		70	0.30	72	0.00	72	0.05	63	0.05	58	0.05	71	0.05
Farrell 1958		82	0.22	76	0.00	79	0.04	71	0.04	60	0.05	78	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		81	0.22	46	0.00	77	0.03	80	0.03	33	0.53	52	0.13
Fliere 1977		6	0.51	15	0.01	19	0.09	18	0.46	36	0.45	22	0.45
Fou 1978		35	0.41	73	0.00	37	0.06	32	0.24	30	0.36	34	0.29
Francois 1956		22	0.44	77	0.00	25	0.09	17	0.46	14	0.67	14	0.56
Friedman 1923		36	0.41	27	0.00	64	0.05	59	0.05	48	0.10	65	0.07
Friedman 1923b		34	0.41	53	0.00	58	0.04	69	0.04	49	0.09	69	0.06
Friedman 1930		29	0.42	25	0.00	60	0.04	73	0.04	42	0.18	63	0.08
Garcia 2007		39	0.40	6	0.03	9	0.11	11	0.53	9	0.64	11	0.58
Garcia 2007b		83	0.18	58	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	76	0.03	88	0.03
Gierzod 1998		77	0.23	74	0.00	73	0.05	56	0.05	62	0.05	75	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		16	0.45	5	0.10	5	0.16	9	0.55	9	0.71	7	0.62
Groot 1988		31	0.42	38	0.00	30	0.08	23	0.40	41	0.17	38	0.26
Harasiewicz 1955		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Hatto 1993		17	0.44	47	0.00	27	0.09	30	0.26	32	0.28	35	0.27
Hatto 1997		56	0.36	78	0.00	55	0.04	68	0.04	32	0.22	62	0.09
Horowitz 1949		57	0.36	52	0.00	65	0.06	47	0.06	42	0.18	57	0.10
Indjic 1988		47	0.39	55	0.00	49	0.06	53	0.06	56	0.07	66	0.06
Kapell 1951		25	0.42	9	0.02	16	0.11	22	0.42	21	0.40	26	0.41
Kissin 1993		73	0.29	41	0.00	71	0.04	67	0.04	58	0.06	73	0.05
Kushner 1989		69	0.30	59	0.00	75	0.03	87	0.03	56	0.05	79	0.04
Luisada 1991		42	0.40	48	0.00	44	0.07	42	0.14	41	0.24	43	0.18
Lushtak 2004		64	0.32	22	0.00	76	0.04	74	0.04	46	0.06	76	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		43	0.40	79	0.00	57	0.04	66	0.04	36	0.19	61	0.09
Magaloff 1978		50	0.38	39	0.00	45	0.06	50	0.06	36	0.30	49	0.13
Magin 1975		52	0.37	63	0.00	62	0.05	61	0.05	35	0.33	50	0.13
Michalowski 1933		19	0.44	13	0.01	21	0.09	24	0.38	11	0.54	23	0.45
Milkina 1970		41	0.40	33	0.00	12	0.09	14	0.50	8	0.65	12	0.57
Mohovich 1999		10	0.48	26	0.00	8	0.14	7	0.58	7	0.67	6	0.62
Moravec 1969		8	0.50	4	0.13	4	0.29	4	0.67	1	0.77	4	0.72
Morozova 2008		38	0.40	30	0.00	48	0.06	52	0.06	71	0.04	74	0.05
Neighaus 1950		3	0.54	2	0.15	2	0.21	2	0.74	2	0.75	3	0.74
Niedzielski 1931		55	0.36	45	0.00	61	0.05	65	0.05	41	0.17	60	0.09
Ohlsson 1999		5	0.52	19	0.01	7	0.12	6	0.59	12	0.60	10	0.59
Osinska 1989		2	0.56	3	0.14	3	0.26	3	0.69	2	0.80	2	0.74
Pachmann 1927		20	0.44	49	0.00	43	0.05	41	0.14	26	0.48	36	0.26
Paderewski 1930		51	0.38	56	0.00	63	0.05	57	0.05	36	0.32	51	0.13
Perlemuter 1992		11	0.48	32	0.00	20	0.08	21	0.42	12	0.66	15	0.53
Pierdomenico 2008		58	0.36	50	0.00	52	0.05	58	0.05	22	0.39	47	0.14
Poblocka 1999		62	0.34	54	0.00	39	0.06	36	0.20	32	0.30	39	0.24
Rabcewiczowa 1932		59	0.36	8	0.03	13	0.08	25	0.37	18	0.65	19	0.49
Rachmaninoff 1923		66	0.31	75	0.00	53	0.04	72	0.04	36	0.21	59	0.09
Rangell 2001		37	0.40	67	0.00	26	0.09	19	0.45	7	0.54	20	0.49
Richter 1976		13	0.47	43	0.00	50	0.07	46	0.07	44	0.28	48	0.14
Rosen 1989		7	0.51	29	0.00	6	0.11	5	0.62	7	0.66	5	0.64
Rosenthal 1930		75	0.24	68	0.00	74	0.03	82	0.03	50	0.06	80	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.12	87	0.00	86	0.03	79	0.03	63	0.04	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.14	83	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	61	0.04	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		80	0.22	80	0.00	78	0.04	77	0.04	51	0.05	83	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		87	0.10	88	0.00	80	0.03	78	0.03	48	0.06	82	0.04
Rossi 2007		86	0.12	71	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	46	0.06	77	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		46	0.39	16	0.01	35	0.08	34	0.22	8	0.45	32	0.31
Rubinstein 1952		18	0.44	18	0.01	10	0.10	8	0.56	5	0.66	8	0.61
Rubinstein 1966		15	0.46	81	0.00	17	0.15	13	0.52	8	0.49	18	0.50
Schilhawsky 1960		28	0.42	17	0.01	59	0.04	75	0.04	12	0.53	46	0.15
Shebanova 2002		33	0.41	42	0.00	51	0.05	60	0.05	48	0.09	64	0.07
Smith 1975		24	0.43	20	0.01	28	0.07	27	0.32	12	0.61	24	0.44
Sokolov 2002		12	0.48	31	0.00	14	0.08	12	0.52	4	0.70	9	0.60
Sztompka 1959		45	0.39	51	0.00	36	0.05	31	0.26	38	0.26	37	0.26
Tomsic 1995		61	0.35	23	0.00	40	0.07	39	0.16	21	0.31	41	0.22
Uninsky 1932		14	0.46	10	0.01	15	0.10	15	0.49	20	0.45	21	0.47
Uninsky 1971		21	0.44	24	0.00	18	0.10	16	0.48	8	0.52	17	0.50
Wasowski 1980		48	0.39	64	0.00	46	0.06	55	0.06	41	0.23	54	0.12
Zak 1937		30	0.42	12	0.01	22	0.07	29	0.30	15	0.53	27	0.40
Zak 1951		26	0.42	7	0.03	23	0.13	28	0.31	11	0.61	25	0.43
Random 1		89	-0.04	57	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	78	0.02	90	0.01
Random 2		88	-0.01	90	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	60	0.05	85	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.05	84	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	55	0.03	89	0.02

Column descriptions

• Performance:
• 0-Rank/0-Score: 0-Score is equivalent to Pearson correlation of the entire data sequence between the reference performance and a test performance. 0-Rank is the sorting order of the 0-scores (highest score has a rank of 1).
• 1-Rank/1-Score: 1-Score is the area fraction covered by a particular performance in the scape plot (see image above). These values should not be taken literally, since they are sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
• 2-Rank/2-Score: 2-Score values are equivalent to 1-Score values with all higher-ranking performances removed before the calculation of the area of coverage in the scape is calculated. Improvment over the 1-Rank scores, but still somewhat sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
• 3-Rank/3-Score: Similar to 2-Rank calculations. The bottom 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are kept constant as a noise floor for the similarity measurement. Then one-by-one the top 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are superimposed with the noise-floor performances, and a 3-score is measured as the area covered in the scape. This measure is not sentisive to the Hatto Effect.
• 3R-Rank/3R-Score: Reverse 3-rank/3-scores. 3-rankings and scores are not symmetric (A->B values are different from B->A values). So this column represents similarity measures in the opposite direction.
• 4-Rank/4-Score: The geometric mean between 3-scores and 3R-scores. This column gives the best overall similarity ranking between the various performances (see color codes below).
• NED: Noise Equivalient Distance (not yet implemented)

Color codes for 3-rank listings:

• red = strongly similar performance to target
• orange = moderately similar performance
• yellow = weakly similar performance
• green = marginally similar/dissimilar performance
• white = dissimilar to target
• blue = false positive (has high 3-rank score but low 3R-rank score)

3-rank/scores are not symmetric, so the 3R-rank/score columns give the 3-rank/scores going in the opposite direction. More matches in the 3-rank column than in the 3R-rank column indicates an individualistic performance, while more matches in the 3R-rank column indicates a mainstream performance.

If a 3-rank and a 3R-rank are both marked as similar to each other, then there is a possible direct relation between the performances. If one is similar to the other but not in the reverse direction, then the similarity is more likely to be by chance (performers randomly chose a similar interpretation).